Only time they mentioned TEI if I remember, was when they were embargoed heavily by the Canadians and Rotax engine supply ceased. Then they tested PD-170 and were very impressed with it’s power delivery.
Regarding the TF6000 and it’s Ukrainian counterpart ; On paper there is no comparison. TF6000 is miles more advanced than any Soviet era engine. It has blisk fan technology. It uses single crystal turbine blades. Overall efficiency is much more improved.
But if I were to choose today, it will have to be the Ukrainian engine. There is no TF6000 in existence. But when the TF6000 starts spinning, even if it is more expensive it will be cheaper to use it as it is going to be indigenous and technically superior. Hence more frugal on fuel and more akin to an engine for stealth planes.
Comparing the the two is analogous to choosing between carrying passengers with a 1980’s model Ford Transit or with 2020’s Mercedes Vito Tourer.
Thanks. For understanding a little bit better and somewhat benchmark TF6000 against its peers, I dug a little deeper.
Here's a table with similar dry thrusts to TF6000. They're all low-bypass engines. The SFC(Specific Fuel Consumption) values are for sea-level.
Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour
|Thrust:|| 6000 lbf|| 6000 lbf||5500 lbf|| 6280 lbf|
|SFC:|| 0.7 lbf/(lbs.h)||0.81lbf/(lbs.h)||0.64 kgf/kg.h|| 0.78 lbf/(lbs.h)|
|Bypass Ratio||1.04||0.75-0.8||1.19?|| 0.49|
|First Run||Q1 2023(?)||1968||1998|| 1979|
|809 kg||560kg|| 521.6kg|
The lower the SFC, the more efficient is the engine. First of all, there are not a lot of recently developed turbofan engines in the same class. Actually, none that I know of. If you know any low-bypass turbofan designed in this millenia, I'd be happy to add it to the table . So my questions are, if you will:
1. The SFC value for AI-322F is given in metric terms. Since the numerator and denominator of both metric and imperial units are the same, I wasn't sure if I should convert the rate by multiplying 2.204. If that is the case, then the engine's SFC is 1.41 . That's an awfully inefficient engine. Even turbojets have lower SFC than that. It didn't make sense. So I left it as it is. But this doesn't make sense either. Because 0.64 is lower than TF6000's SFC of 0.7 . In the most recent interview of Mahmut Akşit, he said TF6000 is much more efficient than its Ukrainian counterparts. This confuses me. Can you shed some light onto this?
2. Is the SFC number tightly correlated with the technology of the engine and not so much with the other factors like the engine's diameter, bypass ratio, service life, maintainability etc. ? I ask this because should we expect similar SFC's from our future, bigger engines(military)? Would it be false to draw parallels between TF6000 and TFX engine(assuming it's designed by TEI) in terms of SFC?
3. How heavy do you think TF6000 will be?
The questions are for anyone who thinks he has an answer for.
@Nilgiri @Yasar @fire starter @TechNamu
Unrelated Edit: How can I give the same width to columns in the table(my first time).
Edit 2: I forgot about Indian HAL HTFE-25 engine. It's still in development. But its latest figures are;
SFC: 0.71 kg/kgf-hr
Bypass ratio: 0.5
First Run: 2015
Dry weight: 350 kilograms
Here the SFC is also given with metric units. It's less efficient than AI-322F but it's 210kg lighter
. It's almost a whopping 40% lighter. How could that be? Now I'm even more confused